U.S. Department of Energy releases list of alternate routes for Northern Pass project

The U.S. Department of Energy issued a list Thursday of more than 20 alternative options for the Northern Pass project that it will study during its ongoing environmental evaluation of the $1.4 billion electric transmission plan.

Many of the alternative routes outlined in the report include additional burial of the transmission lines, ranging from burying roughly 20 miles of line that pass through the White Mountain National Forest to burying the entire route.

The list reveals what kinds of alternatives the department will study before releasing a draft environmental impact statement expected later this year and later, a decision on whether to grant the project its necessary permit.

The list’s release was praised widely, by lawmakers, critics and supporters of the project, who said publicizing the alternatives increases transparency in the process.

“We didn’t know before today what alternatives had been identified by the public . . . by the developer, (that) were even on the table,” said Christophe Courchesne of the Conservation Law Foundation.

“I am encouraged that the U.S. Department of Energy has heard the concerns of New Hampshire citizens and has agreed to examine a wide range of options on the proposed Northern Pass project, including several underground options,” Gov. Maggie Hassan said in a statement.

As currently planned, the Northern Pass transmission lines would run 153 miles from Pittsburg to a converter station in Franklin. Then, 34 miles of overhead lines would travel from there to a substation in Deerfield. According to the current route plan, 8 miles of the total 187 miles of transmission lines would be buried.

The Department of Energy’s list of alternatives outlines several new route options that include major additional burial. One proposes burying the entire project along its existing route. Another proposes an underground transmission line for the entire length of a new route that would travel along existing roadways and rights of way. In that case, the proposed route would pass south on Interstate 93 to Concord and then head east on Interstate 393.

Further options include burying a section of the line when it passes through the White Mountain National Forest or burying only the section between Pittsburg and the proposed converter station in Franklin.

“One can read from the tea leaves that this thing is headed towards . . . far more burial than they are proposing now,” said Jack Savage, spokesman for the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests.

The proposed burial of 8 miles of transmission lines along Northern Pass’s planned route added more than $100 million to the project’s cost, said Northern Pass spokeswoman Lauren Collins. On average, she said, overhead transmission lines cost about $3 million a mile while underground lines run $15 million to $20 million a mile.

In addition to studying environmental impact, part of the evaluation process is considering the economic factors as well, she said, “because the ultimate goal is to have a preferred route that allows the project to meet its goals.”

Other options outlined in the report include no-build alternatives, instead relying on energy conservation to offset future needs or increasing the capacity of existing energy operations in the area.

One thing missing from the entire list of options, Savage said, was any alternative entry point at the Canadian-U.S. border. In all the listed routes, the transmission lines cross into Pittsburg.

And even though the report outlines a variety of alternatives, it leaves several questions unanswered, Courchesne said. The department will not study all of the listed options in detail, it will only look at those it determines are feasible.

“It is a good preliminary look at what alternatives they are going to look at,” Savage said. “It gives us some indication as to what direction they are going in.”

National security issue? Who is anyone kidding? Does having to rely on a foreign nation for our energy needs provide us with greater national security? And does putting our own domestic production at an unfair competitive disadvantage to a foreign, state-sponsored enterprise give us greater national security? And is domestic wealth destruction so that a foreign entity can reap massive profits in our interests of national security? Just why is sending more of our dollars to Canada in our national security interests?

BestPresidentReagan wrote:

05/04/2014

As I have said all along - NP WILL BE BUILT - PERIOD. It is a National Security Issue. What the NIMBY visual Purists are doing is only delaying the inevitable

Stuck_in_Canterbury wrote:

05/03/2014

Why bother? NH is run by a would-be 'elite' who would would pay thru the nose for dirty oil and expensive natural gas, rather than harness and apply the best form of solar energy capture. It's clear that nothing, absolutely nothing, will knock some common sense into their narrow little brains. Forget about it!

GWTW wrote:

05/03/2014

where do we put the big batteries that will power NH at night??

ItsaRepublic wrote:

05/04/2014

GWTW, we already know that progressives love 19th century technologies like the windmill and choo choo trains. I guess all electrical energy should cease at dusk and we should return to candles. Yes, candlestick makers would flourish, places like the League of NH Craftsmen would add several to their ranks. Of course they would have to be environmentally friendly candles...... Now the hippie type crowd that wants quaint self governed villages could add a candle stick maker to the butcher, baker and hemp clothing maker. When the hemp clothing rips the "seamstress" can mend the clothes. Next up, horses instead of cars, it will cause a boom for blacksmiths. Onward to the 18th century technology next!! Woo-hoo!

I_love_NH wrote:

05/03/2014

While we'd all like to believe that we can "trust the process", we've been shown time and again that the opposite is true. The audacity of no. pass to propose such an outdated and damaging project that would trash our state and our property values is way over the top - even for them. We have become accustomed to their self serving use of the system and the process but their complete disregard for the concerns of the people, towns, elected officials, the Governor, and every environmental organization - while at the same time claiming to have their complete support - has reached a new level of unprofessionalism - even for them. When every other large scale transmission project in our region currently being proposed uses modern underground technology for their entire routes, why would NH agree to subsidize this step backwards in time with our property values and unique picturesque landscape? NH has spoken loud and clear, time and again - bury it all the way like they are doing all around us and like they do in CT where no. pass is from. It's only fair.

BestPresidentReagan wrote:

05/03/2014

As I have said all along - NP will be built - It is a National Security issue

GWTW wrote:

05/03/2014

"overhead transmission lines cost about $3 million a mile"......that figure struck me as astronomical. That must include all the infrastructure in the length of the project averaged in...I'd like to know what the cost would be for the average mile of just towers and lines...is it really $3 million??? The cost of many building projects floors me...like $10 million for a new fire station...maybe its just me.